Jesus devotee Krisna.

[krishnas]

Let's stop dancing around the issue and get to the real point. We can go on arbitrarily designating what are the characteristics of a pure devotee, and then proceed to quote the Bible showing that Jesus lives up to them.

 

But in Nectar of Devotion, Srila Rupa Gosvami, whose scholarship I think is beyond question, has listed actual characteristics of pure devotion. These are in Chapter One:

 

1) Pure devotional service brings immediate relief from all kinds of material distress

2) Pure devotional service is the beginning of all auspiciousness.

3) Pure devotional service automatically puts one in transcendental pleasure.

4) Pure devotional service is rarely achieved.

5) Those in pure devotional service deride even the conception of liberation.

6) Pure devotional service is the only means to attract Krishna.

 

Now, some of you can say, so what? These are also arbitrary, and why should we accept the authority of Rupa Gosvami? Well that is fine and good, but if Rupa Gosvami's authority is in question by any Hindu or Vaishnava, then why should those same people blindly accept the authority of Jesus?

 

In any case, Rupa Gosvami's list has the support of shaastra. Please refer to Chapter One in Nectar of Devotion to see these pramaanas listed nicely by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Also bear in mind that, before one even gets to the stage of pure devotion, there still is the issue of following Vedic injunctions, without which one can never attain the stage of pure devotion. I have already quoted Gita in this regard. How does one explain away Jesus' discarding certain Vedic regulations? Note that referring to some instances where his behavior is acceptable is not a good argument; there are plenty of other instances where is behavior is clearly not.

 

 

[karthik_v]

Very nice Krishnas prabhu. I agree with you. We cannot selectively quote Jesus and declare that he was a pure devotee, when it suits us, while condoning those actions of Jesus that portray him in poor light. It is also not necessary to fit every saint into the Vaishnava mould. Some, obviously, are not. That leaves us with only 2 options:

 

One, accept that there are many paths to realization and that Vaishnavism is one of them.

 

Two, declare that only Vaishnavism is valid and that Jesus, Sankara etc. were bogus.

[krishnas]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Very nice Krishnas prabhu. I agree with you. We cannot selectively quote Jesus and declare that he was a pure devotee, when it suits us, while condoning those actions of Jesus that portray him in poor light. It is also not necessary to fit every saint into the Vaishnava mould. Some, obviously, are not. That leaves us with only 2 options:

 

One, accept that there are many paths to realization and that Vaishnavism is one of them.

 

 

This most certainly does not follow from the above.

 

Two, declare that only Vaishnavism is valid and that Jesus, Sankara etc. were bogus.

Just because one can refute another's philosophy by using shaastra, it is no reason to treat that person disrespectfully. I will not call Jesus, Shankara, or others bogus. I am simply saying that what they teach is not consistent with shaastra, and hence not compatible with Vaishnavism.

 

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by krishnas:

I'm just glad that this wasn't Srila Prabhupada's standard. How unfortunate that many of his followers have sunk to this.

 

 

 

This is being Srila PrabhupadJi's STANDARD:-

 

Originally posted by atma:

Srila Prabhupada on Lord Jesus:

"The Srimad Bhagavatam states that any bonafide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titiksa (tolerance) and karuna (compassion). In the character of Lord Jesus Christ we find both these qualities. He was so tolerant that even while he was being crucified, he didn't condemn anyone. And he was so compassionate that he prayed to God to forgive the very persons who were trying to kill him. (of course, they could not actually kill him. But they were thinking that he could be killed, so they were commiting a great offense.). As Christ was being crucified he prayed "Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing.".....

A Vaisnava is unhappy to see the suffering of others. Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified - to free others from their suffering...

Jesus Christ was such a great personality -the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him - they were so thankless. They could not appreciate his preaching. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God.

Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place and country, and just suited for a particular group of people. But certaintly he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him.

Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me. They asked,"What is your idea of Jesus Christ?". I told them, "He is our guru, he is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master." The ministers very much appreciated that.

Actually, anyone who is preaching God's glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ in one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness.'

 

 

[karthik_v]

Krishnas:

 

Just because one can refute another's philosophy by using shaastra, it is no reason to treat that person disrespectfully. I will not call Jesus, Shankara, or others bogus.

 

Neither will I. I presented that argument a bit sarcastically. Many times GV, ISKCON sannyasis will even compare Sankaracaryas to poisonous cobras and advaita to "yellow stool". Yet, they will glorify Jesus like anything. Many times I have seen them condemn Swami Vivekananda for having eaten meat and even denounce him as bogus. Now it seems that BVT himself ate meat.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Now it seems that BVT himself ate meat.

...and Bilvamangala was attached to a prostitute.

 

You are looking in the wrong direction.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-15-2002).]

[krishnas]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Krishnas:

Neither will I. I presented that argument a bit sarcastically. Many times GV, ISKCON sannyasis will even compare Sankaracaryas to poisonous cobras and advaita to "yellow stool". Yet, they will glorify Jesus like

anything.

 

 

ISKCON devotees take note, this is the mess you made, and I'm not cleaning it up. Now maybe Atma and Shashi, who think I am offensive, can explain to Karthik why this double standard is in fact not so. I'm staying out of it.

 

Many times I have seen them condemn Swami Vivekananda for having eaten meat and even denounce him as bogus. Now it seems that BVT himself ate meat.

Oh please, is it too much to ask for a bit of honesty? No one has proven that Bhaktivinode Thaakur ate meat. Even if he did, the allegation is that he did so before his initiation/spiritual rebirth.

 

When did Vivekananda eat meat? It was well known that he ate meat even while he was a sannyaasi, travelling around and lecturing on dharma. His followers have admitted to me that he ate meat and smoked cigarettes even while wearing the robes of a renunciate.

 

The allegation is that Bhaktivinode ate meat before being initiated into Vaishnavism, after which he reformed and followed brahminical conduct. But Vivekananda ate meat and smoked even while preaching religion. His followers tell me that Vivekananda HAD to do these things, to get the strength to go and preach.

 

In one case, one does wrong and is reformed by religion, while in the other case, one does wrong in the name of religion.

 

How can you even think to compare these two examples? This is outright dishonesty.

 

I don't defend the adharmic behavior of some ISKCON devotees, so stop making excuses for the adharmic behavior of modern-day Advaitins like Vivekananda. Actually, as bad as some ISKCONites are, I never saw them eat meat or smoke like Vivekananda did.

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by krishnas:

Now maybe Atma and Shashi, who think I am offensive, can explain to Karthik why this double standard is in fact not so. I'm staying out of it.

 

 

Pardons me? But when is it that I am saying you are offensive? Please be showing.

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by krishnas:

Now maybe Atma and Shashi, who think I am offensive, can explain to Karthik why this double standard is in fact not so. I'm staying out of it.

 

That one is seeing Lord Jesus in the Exodus. Thus he must be explaining something before I must explaining. Up to that times he must be taking less coconut for the repasts.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by krishnas:

The allegation is that Bhaktivinode ate meat before being initiated into Vaishnavism, after which he reformed and followed brahminical conduct.

At what age did Bhaktivinode get initiated ?

 

[karthik_v]

J N Das:

 

...and Bilvamangala was attached to a prostitute.

 

That is not okay with me. How should I react when sombody tells me that Vivekananda was "attached" to Nivedita, but was a saint too?

 

Krishnas:

 

Even if he did, the allegation is that he did so before his initiation/spiritual rebirth.

 

Ram has been asking this question for some days now and nobody has answered yet. Did he eat meat after hhis first initiation? Theist mentioned that BVT was writing books while eating meat? So, how can it be condoned?

 

I don't defend the adharmic behavior of some ISKCON devotees, so stop making excuses for the adharmic behavior of modern-day Advaitins like Vivekananda.

 

I am not defending Vivekananda. To me something is adharmic, if it is adharmic - no matter who commits it.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

That is not okay with me. How should I react when sombody tells me that Vivekananda was "attached" to Nivedita, but was a saint too?

The scriptures instruct us not to look for the source of a clean river, nor to look for defects in the early life of the saints. What one has done before becoming realized (or manifesting realization) is irrelevant. Bilvamangala was attached to a prostitute, but later that prostitute instructed him in devotional life and he became a pure devotee. One should not continue to point out the flaw that he used to be attached to a prostitute.

 

Vivekananda on the other hand performed sinful activities while claiming to follow spirituality. In Ramakrishna mission, even today, they cook chicken meals for the Swamijis, and the Swamis do not have to follow any rules or regulations. Swami Vivekananda did not consider eating meat as sinful, nor smoking and taking intoxicants. This is clearly different from someone like Bilvamangala or Bhaktivinoda engaging in sinful activity prior to realization of truth.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur acknowledges the flaw in his actions and laments his fallen condition, whereas Vivekananda does not accept his actions as faulty or wrong.

 

Ram has been asking this question for some days now and nobody has answered yet. Did he eat meat after hhis first initiation? Theist mentioned that BVT was writing books while eating meat? So, how can it be condoned?

Realization has nothing to do with a ritual or a date any more than your upanayama made you realized in Brahman. We are refering to the point of self-realization (a point which we can not particularly identify), not the date he received his family priests initiation.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur (by his own statements) was an impersonalist philosophy prior to taking to the path of Krishna bhakti. His writing books or not is really not relevant, as he was a writer and scholar. We should keep in mind the Bhagavatams statements regarding the liberated souls, that they appear as ordinary conditioned men until necessary to manifest their divine light.

 

[karthik_v]

J N Das:

 

The scriptures instruct us not to look for the source of a clean river, nor to look for defects in the early life of the saints. What one has done before becoming realized (or manifesting realization) is irrelevant.

 

Agreed.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur acknowledges the flaw in his actions and laments his fallen condition, whereas Vivekananda does not accept his actions as faulty or wrong.

 

Agreed. In fact, Vivekananda advocates eating beef. For example he says, while talking on Brhadaranyaka upanishad, that the most glorious days of Indian history were when 5 Brahmins would finish off a cow for a meal.

 

Realization has nothing to do with a ritual or a date any more than your upanayama made you realized in Brahman. We are refering to the point of self-realization (a point which we can not particularly identify), not the date he received his family priests initiation.

 

I am not sure that I agree with this 100%. When somebody gets initiated by a guru, the guru gives him the instructions and the disciple promises to follow them. Since BVT was a scholar and even wote books, he wouldn't have failed to understand them. So, did he violate the oath he had taken?

 

We should keep in mind the Bhagavatams statements regarding the liberated souls, that they appear as ordinary conditioned men until necessary to manifest their divine light.

 

This I again agree with. Of course, only after having made the above point.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I am not sure that I agree with this 100%. When somebody gets initiated by a guru, the guru gives him the instructions and the disciple promises to follow them.

In Bengal and Orissa these initiations by family priests are as common as upanayanam in South India, yet they are not only reserved for the higher casts. It is just a ritualistic ceremony with little spiritual meaning. The brahmanas in Orissa and Bengal eat fish. Their rituals are not signs of a spiritual vows or commitment.

 

Thus I wouldn't give much importance to Bhaktivinoda Thakur's initiation ceremony, regardless of whether it occured before or after him having given up eating fish (if he did indeed eat fish!).

 

A lot of these things are based on non-established points. For the sake of argument I am just accepting that what other people have said here is true. It would probably be better if someone posted Bhaktivinoda Thakur's own statements about him eating fish.

[karthik_v]

J N Das:

 

It would probably be better if someone posted Bhaktivinoda Thakur's own statements about him eating fish.

 

Valid.

[kailasa]

Lord Jesus mention in Upanisadas.